It seems odd to me that they're not willing to offer Tony a third year at short money, but gave Pierce 4 years guaranteed at $15mil per. If their plan is cap flexibility for 2012, Pierce's contract hurts that plan much more than Tony's would. Granted, Pierce is far more important to the Celtics plans of winning right now. But this just seems a little odd considering our painful lack of depth. It also would be nice to have a defender of Tony's caliber going up against LeBron and Wade.
But it's still early, so I'll wait to see what shakes out for the rest of the off season.
Because one is very talented and is a main piece to the teams title run and will go on to have his number put in the rafters and has a shot at the hall of fame.
And the other is TA.
The fact that Pierce's # is going to be retired should have absolutely nothing to do with his new contract, and shame on ownership if it does. I'm willing to give Ainge the benefit of the doubt that he knows what he's doing, but the future success of the team should not be jeopardized because Celtics ownership wants Pierce to retire a Celtic.
No. It is because they want to keep the window open the next two years. In two years, the Celtics will have to likely start rebuilding through the draft and through trade. Pierce will likely still be a good trading piece.
I hope you're right, but I just don't see a 35 yr old with $30 million left on his contract being that big a trade commodity. Also, was Pierce granted a no-trade clause in this contract? That wouldn't help either.
I think the idea is that with PP, Rondo, Perk, BBD, and Bradley, they'll have a good enough nucleus and enough cap space to take on 1 max player in 2012. Then, when Pierce retires, they'll fill his spot with another max player in 2014.
Three superstars, some good role players, and maybe a couple more lucky draft picks could lead to a solid rebuilding effort.
Will it take luck? Sure. But all rebuilding efforts do. It's certainly no worse than any other.